Impact of central venous port implantation method and access choice on outcomes

Table 3 Comparison of central venous port-implanted patients according to the access method, n (%)

Parameters	Group 1	Group 2	P value
Age, mean ± SD (median)	58.2 ± 11.3 (61.0)	60.9 ± 12.7 (63.5)	0.0601
Port use duration in mo, mean ± SD (median)	12.3 ± 9.9 (9.5)	14.7 ± 19.8 (8.0)	0.3551
Sex			0.0662
Female	43 (43)	56 (56)
Male	57 (57)	44 (44)
Side			0.2682
Right	91 (91)	95 (95)
Left	9 (9)	5 (5)
Number of the chemotherapy drug(s)			0.4732
1	46 (46)	41 (41)
2	42 (42)	41 (41)
3	12 (12)	18 (18)
Complications			0.0002
Present	2 (2)	18 (18)
Absent	98 (98)	82 (82)
Clavien-Dindo complication severity classification			0.0002
0-I	98 (98)	81 (81)
II	1 (1)	6 (6)
III	1 (1)	13 (13)

¹Mann-Whitney U test.

²χ² test.

Data are presented as mean ± SD and median, or n (%). Group 1: Patients whose jugular veins were used; group 2: Patients whose subclavian veins were used.